Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 June 29
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 28 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 30 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 29
editDictionary tabs
editIn some older large (as in onabridged) dictionaries, there are tabs marking where each letter begins going down the right side, with acetate-like tab and the letter written on it to mark the start of the A-section, the B-section, all the way to the Z-section and missing paper chunks in the previous letter's pages leading up to that tab. What are these tabs called? Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Higher-class dictionaries have little rounded fingerholes cut into the edges of the paper. Whenever I've encountered tabs extending beyond the edges of the paper, they were added by a previous owner of the book (not part of the book as first published)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thumb index. - Karenjc 06:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! Consider this one resolved. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thumb index. - Karenjc 06:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
"knowing beans about"
editWhat is this phrase supposed to mean? Blah blah knows beans about yada yada. Does Blah blah know a lot or a little about the subject? How about "There is not a single library in town that carries this book, let alone a subject librarian that knows beans about this subject,"? Sneazy (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It means 'to know nothing about' something. The second sentence doesn't make sense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but that's wrong -- you missed a "not" in the link you cite. To "know beans about" something means to know at least a little bit about it. The second sentence means that there is no librarian who knows even a little bit about the subject. Looie496 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- My mistake. I will leave the link in for future reference. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but that's wrong -- you missed a "not" in the link you cite. To "know beans about" something means to know at least a little bit about it. The second sentence means that there is no librarian who knows even a little bit about the subject. Looie496 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to the standard phrase "not to know beans (about)", the Dictionary of American Regional English notes the variants "not to know beans when the bag's open", "not to know beans from butter", "not to know beans from a bull's foot", "not to know beans from barley", "not to know beans from peas", and "not to know beans from buttons". On the general topic of beans as a byword for worthlessness, see here. Deor (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- In an affirmative sentence, would one ever say someone "knows beans" about something except in a sarcastic way meaning they know nothing? (The original sentence about librarians is different because of the overall negative sense.) 86.160.87.176 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely, There are many colloquial English phrases where the negative and positive mean exactly the same thing. "I can hardly wait." and "I can't hardly wait." have identical meanings, as do "You know shit about..." and "You don't know shit about..." as do "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less". These phrases are all understood idiomatically to mean "I am eager", "You don't know about..." and "I don't care", in both the affirmative and the negative. These are pretty well understood in most American English dialects. There are some dialects that have even more convoluted idioms, such as the phrase "So don't I..." in New England English, which is understood to mean "I do too...":[1]. While that one is a bit local to New England, the other constructions are pretty well understood colloquially across America. --Jayron32 20:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand your answer. You say "absolutely", but then you go on to imply the opposite. 86.160.87.176 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Someone should have explained it to Michael Curtiz, who famously exploded: You people, you think I know fuck nothing. I tell you: I know fuck all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking of Curtiz, see this clip from Casablanca, at 1.32. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely, There are many colloquial English phrases where the negative and positive mean exactly the same thing. "I can hardly wait." and "I can't hardly wait." have identical meanings, as do "You know shit about..." and "You don't know shit about..." as do "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less". These phrases are all understood idiomatically to mean "I am eager", "You don't know about..." and "I don't care", in both the affirmative and the negative. These are pretty well understood in most American English dialects. There are some dialects that have even more convoluted idioms, such as the phrase "So don't I..." in New England English, which is understood to mean "I do too...":[1]. While that one is a bit local to New England, the other constructions are pretty well understood colloquially across America. --Jayron32 20:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain "let alone" used in my first sentence of this topic? Sneazy (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's a bit difficult. It basically means that what follows it is even farther from reality than what comes before it. For example, "You want me to pay ten dollars for that?! I wouldn't give you ten cents, let alone ten dollars!". Or, "There isn't even a bicycle in that village, let alone an automobile." Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- That second example doesn't seem very good to me, because the availability of bicycles and automobiles is not really related. You could say some civilization hasn't invented the bicycle, let alone the automobile, or you could say there isn't even an automobile in this town, let alone a Range Rover, but there has to be some logical link between the "X, let alone Y" that I find lacking in your second example. A native speaker would still understand what you want to say, so it's not incorrect, it just seems like a poor usage. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. Bigger picture: If someone wanted some means of transportation other than walking, he'd prefer an automobile but would settle for a motorbike, a scooter or even a bicycle if that's all that's available, but is being told the village doesn't even run to a bicycle. Quite plausible. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- That second example doesn't seem very good to me, because the availability of bicycles and automobiles is not really related. You could say some civilization hasn't invented the bicycle, let alone the automobile, or you could say there isn't even an automobile in this town, let alone a Range Rover, but there has to be some logical link between the "X, let alone Y" that I find lacking in your second example. A native speaker would still understand what you want to say, so it's not incorrect, it just seems like a poor usage. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- The OP may find this of interest:[2] The "beans" metaphor (and euphemism) appears to have been around for a very long time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, "beans" in this construction is a negative polarity item... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's very interesting, AnonMoos. If you read Philadelphia accent you will see that anymore is positively, instead of (or as well as) negatively licensed. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)